Questionnaire data suggest that students' preconceptions about hunger and eating are inconsistent with contemporary theories. In general, students adhere to a set-point model, whereas current research indicates that the feeding system prevents energy deficits rather than reacts to them. Instructors should explicitly describe students' preconceptions about hunger and eating, discuss the incompatibility of these preconceptions with the empirical evidence, and introduce contemporary theories as alternative conceptions. This approach is effective both in overcoming students' misconceptions about hunger and eating and in increasing student involvement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlvermannD. E.HagueS. A. (1989). Comprehension of counterintuitive science text: Effects of prior knowledge and text structure. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 197–202.
2.
ArnoldM.MillarR. (1987). Being constructive: An alternative approach to the teaching of introductory ideas in electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 553–563.
3.
AssanandS.PinelJ. P. J.LehmanD. R. (1996). Common misconceptions about the regulation of feeding. Unpublished manuscript.
4.
BollesR.C. (1980). Some functionalistic thoughts about regulation. In ToatesF. M.HallidayT. R. (Eds.), Analysis of motivational processes (pp. 63–75). London: Academic.
5.
BollesR. C. (1990). A functionalistic approach to feeding. In CapaldiE. D.PowleyT. L. (Eds.), Taste, experience, and feeding (pp. 3–13). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6.
BoothD. A. (1981). The physiology of appetite. British Medical Bulletin, 37, 135–140.
7.
ChampagneA. B.GunstoneR. F.KlopferL. E. (1983). Naive knowledge and science learning. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1, 173–183.
8.
GuzzettiB. J.SnyderT. E.GlassG. V.GamasW. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116–159.
9.
PinelJ. P. J. (1997). Biopsychology (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
10.
StanovichK. E. (1996). How to think straight about psychology (4th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
11.
ToatesF. M. (1981). The control of ingestive behavior by internal and external stimuli—A theoretical review. Appetite, 2, 35–50.
12.
WeingartenH. P. (1985). Stimulus control of eating: Implications for a two-factor theory of hunger. Appetite, 6, 387–401.
13.
WoodsS. C. (1991). The eating paradox: How we tolerate food. Psychological Review, 98, 488–505.
14.
WoodsS. C.StrubbeJ. H. (1994). The psychobiology of meals. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 141–155.
